Richmond also got a 1st rd pick and 3rd rd pick for Tambling from Adelaide. We got SFA for Toumpas.

well that's painting it better than it was

richmond got an end-of-first-round pick plus p51

the end-of-first-round pick ended up being p30 (hardly a first round) for jake batchelor

the p51 pick got them dean macdonald

well that's painting it better than it was

richmond got an end-of-first-round pick plus p51

the end-of-first-round pick ended up being p30 (hardly a first round) for jake batchelor

the p51 pick got them dean macdonald

Same same but different.

I'd have thought Mitch Thorp over Joel Selwood would be the clincher.

A prime example of how whingeing about fluffed draft picks is pointless.

Work with what you've got.

This comment sums it up completely.

So many clubs have stuffed up draft picks (of course we have more so than others). The goods sides just move on and know that a draft pick is just a number and has nothing to do with how the player turns out. I think that is the way our club is run now, took us long enough though!

This comment sums it up completely.

So many clubs have stuffed up draft picks (of course we have more so than others). The goods sides just move on and know that a draft pick is just a number and has nothing to do with how the player turns out. I think that is the way our club is run now, took us long enough though!

We've just traded up to get 2 top 10 picks so we clearly value them. And the Hawks are still experiencing a period of dominance they set up with getting Hodge, Franklin, Roughy, Lewis, Birchall, Rioli with high picks in quick succession.

I think our philosophy is to use these picks this year to find hopefully 2 but at least 1 high level player to go with the likes of Hogan, Salem, Viney, Tyson, Brayshaw, Petracca. And then from there we can draft and develop good players to complement the stars.

The difference between pick 15 and pick 40 in terms of finding good players is often very small. The higher pick gives you a greater chance of finding the hidden star, but in terms of finding good solid B grade players the picks are similar.

I'd have thought Mitch Thorp over Joel Selwood would be the clincher.

A prime example of how whingeing about fluffed draft picks is pointless.

Work with what you've got.

Well said. You can add Beau Dowler to Hawthorn's early pick flops, and that was a year prior to Thorp.

We've just traded up to get 2 top 10 picks so we clearly value them. And the Hawks are still experiencing a period of dominance they set up with getting Hodge, Franklin, Roughy, Lewis, Birchall, Rioli with high picks in quick succession.

I think our philosophy is to use these picks this year to find hopefully 2 but at least 1 high level player to go with the likes of Hogan, Salem, Viney, Tyson, Brayshaw, Petracca. And then from there we can draft and develop good players to complement the stars.

The difference between pick 15 and pick 40 in terms of finding good players is often very small. The higher pick gives you a greater chance of finding the hidden star, but in terms of finding good solid B grade players the picks are similar.

All clubs value them, because it gives you the best chance to get them right.

But they also know that once they've been used, the pick number no longer serves any real purpose.

Stats in isolation are often misleading. But at the same time sometimes the obvious is right in front of you.

After 3 months out Curnow in his first 4 games went: 4 goals, 2 goals, 3 goals, 4 goals (5 behinds).

With mark totals (contested) of 6 (3), 6 (3), 6 (2), 8 (5).

Forget positional needs. With the 3rd pick in the draft we are after the best possible player. The guy who will add the most value to the team. Now if there isn't a complete player who does almost everything well then you look for a player who has the most upside. And the with modern defensive tactics so good the most valuable player is one who can take a mark and kick a goal.

The scouting report says Curnow is likely to have top quality endurance, good size, the right amount of speed and agility to take his game to the AFL level.

Over the last 3 years Jack Gunston has been one of the leagues best forwards and a super valuable player for the Hawks averaging just over 6 marks a bit under 2.5 goals a game. If that's the type of player Curnow compares with then that's a pretty strong case for picking him.

Gunston plays his role well in a great team. He is not a pick 3 quality player. He's icing, we're looking for cake.

Well said. You can add Beau Dowler to Hawthorn's early pick flops, and that was a year prior to Thorp.

Hawthorn would be going for their sixth straight flag if they didn't stuff up the Thorp and Dowler selections.

We've just traded up to get 2 top 10 picks so we clearly value them. And the Hawks are still experiencing a period of dominance they set up with getting Hodge, Franklin, Roughy, Lewis, Birchall, Rioli with high picks in quick succession.

I think our philosophy is to use these picks this year to find hopefully 2 but at least 1 high level player to go with the likes of Hogan, Salem, Viney, Tyson, Brayshaw, Petracca. And then from there we can draft and develop good players to complement the stars.

The difference between pick 15 and pick 40 in terms of finding good players is often very small. The higher pick gives you a greater chance of finding the hidden star, but in terms of finding good solid B grade players the picks are similar.

That was Schwab's theory during the "tanking years". Alas, it was a failure without good coaching and development.

As bad as some of our selections appear to be I hardly think it is a coincidence that Roos comes to our club and the revamps the coaching panel with the biggest emphasis being on development coaches.

I also point to draftees learning their trade in amongst those really great players at Hawthorn - Contrast that with Toumpas being drafted into a Neeld led club. Good players will always shine irrespective of the (cesspool) of a club they are drafted into but we have certainly gone out of our way to throw obstacles in the path of our youngsters.

Like last year, I seriously don't care who we draft as long as I see talent come into the club that year on year improves to become really good footballers.

It give me such heart to see Salem really developing (even though he had injury concerns) and the start of Brayshaw and Hogan's career. The idea that you get talent and just plonk into a club and it will shine to me is a nonsense. I have faith that the structure we have in place will develop any talent that resides in the youth we draft.

I will opt in and say that the three arguments for drafting a player that have me rolling my eyes are

1/ Great mates with one of the players on our list

2/ Grew up barracking for our club

3/ His brother/father/mother plays/ed for us so we should draft him

Hawthorn would be going for their sixth straight flag if they didn't stuff up the Thorp and Dowler selections.

They could have had Joel Selwood and Nathan Jones/Mitch Clark/Paddy Ryder/Shannon Hurn/Bernie Vince/Andrew Swallow (but still took Grant Birchall later in that draft).

The Hawks made the good ones count, and moved on long ago with the ones that didn't.

Hard to go past taking Fiora ahead of Pavlich.

You're kidding.

Fiora played over 100 games. Tambling played over 100 games. Even Morton played over 80 games.

Toumpas is one of the great disasters.

Btw, I'm not suggesting he was a left-field choice, as he was rated top 3, but it doesn't change the fact he was a disaster of biblical proportions.

I have a bit of a problem with us trading away future picks if we don't have two guys we'd LOVE to have in the top 7. It's a waste. Then again, perhaps they had to bite this bullet in order to move up to pick 3.

Agreed only an idiot would've traded a future pick for this draft it's the worst draft I can recall, we made a big mistake after the first 5 it's turns to [censored] and there's no real superstars in the first 5 brain dead decision.

You're kidding.

Fiora played over 100 games. Tambling played over 100 games. Even Morton played over 80 games.

Toumpas is one of the great disasters.

Btw, I'm not suggesting he was a left-field choice, as he was rated top 3, but it doesn't change the fact he was a disaster.

Toumpas could still play many more.

I'll watch on with mild interest.

Toumpas could still play many more.

I'll watch on with mild interest.

Won't help us and will never change the value of him as a choice for the MFC.

Agreed that's my last take on the Toumpas/Wines talk. My own fault for getting sucked in to the childish crap.

For both parties:

we value your opinions...but not about each other. Posts deleted

Toumpas could still play many more.

I'll watch on with mild interest.

And i hope he does but unfortunately it not going to be with us. Pick 4 for 27 games isn't really much of a success.

This why Parish will be a good pick up for ys because he is not your not soft outside type. The kid actually goes in hard and likes to win the footy inside and out. And he is a footballer first before athlete which is something we haven't heard much with our draftees in the past.

I had a bit of a think about forward lines last night, and I think that versatility is very important. By that I don't mean that being able to swap your CHB and CHF, for example, but instead that your set forward line is able to function in a number of different ways depending on the situation.

For example, in the Grand Final Hawthorn kicked a winning score with only 1 goal between Roughead, Bruest, Puopolo and Hale. They got their goals from Rioli, Smith and Gunston instead, and in the Prelim they got their goals from Roughead, Rioli and Schoenmakers. Bruest kicked 6 in the semi!

You are right about West Coast, who placed a lot of eggs in the Kennedy basket. Once Frawley got him, they were out of ideas. Hawthorn were able to neutralise the long ball forward with Roughead and Schoenmakers (plus Hale) and then allow the smaller, quicker players to break forward into space, like Rioli, Smith or even Gunston.

What we need to do, as a forward line, is to compete for the long ball (even if we don't mark it) and then have a variety of options who can win the ball in general ground level play. We only need the talls to compete for a long kick, not mark it, but then after that everyone's a midfielder. The question is, how many players do we need to compete for that kick? I think that we need two players to compete, because the workload (and risk) for one key forward is too much. But that doesn't mean that it has to be a big three pronged forward line like West Coast's, but it could just be a resting ruckman type.

It could even be Frost. Not because he's a a skillful high marking player but he is athletic enough to get to a lot of contests and strong enough to disrupt the opposition's defenders and bring the ball to ground. The role doesn't require someone to be a superstar, or even very good. You just need someone who works hard and stops the oppositions taking intercept marks. In that role, Dawes (despite how much he is maligned) is actually perfectly fine.

The idea of drawing defenders away from your main key forward is slightly outdated, because there's almost always an extra defender anyway, no matter who it is being kicked to. Plus forwards very rarely get to lead at the ball carrier from deep in the forward line like they used to. So the key is being able to bring the ball to ground and then having players that can win it when it gets there. If you can have running, crumbing players who are good enough to mark when they get a run at the ball, then you require their defenders to guard them in the air, which will create more opportunities at ground level.

agree, versatility in the big man department, ie the resting ruck, like Roughie going into middle, allows the ability to switch the balance of the forwardline to upset the oppos' defence.

versatility is key so far in todays game-style. Lets see where less rotations brings it back to? because imo further cutbacks on rotations are likely.

smart Footy-IQ players are what we need, with strong workrates. in all areas.

Looking at our current mix of mids I think Parish would complement them well.

Agreed only an idiot would've traded a future pick for this draft it's the worst draft I can recall, we made a big mistake after the first 5 it's turns to [censored] and there's no real superstars in the first 5 brain dead decision.

I'd be agreeing with you if we didn't know who we will nab at pick 7, but you can rest assured that we do know who will be there and that is why we made the trade/s

Don't believe all this talk the clubs go on about still deciding who to pick and not knowing what other clubs are doing - It's all a charade designed to keep the fans guessing and drum up media interest.

We've outplayed the Bombers and they are going to have to live with it.

One of the things I like about Parish is that his parents are farmers and that makes drafting him a certified success! Last two blonde son of farmers were Junior McDonald and Tom McDonald! We all know that if you were brought up on a farm you are wiser and more mature than your city slickin counterparts!

Before you go Curry tell me who the new sheila is. I still haven't recovered from your ditching Ellen but I'm prepared to move on.

Ima just leave this here, highlights destroy that of the overated Curnow.

Ollie Wines 2.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v5eGZepg0EM